Madoff Renounces Defendant’s Motion to Compel Discovery in the Clawback Fight
New York, October 17, 2016 – Irving Picard, the court-appointed trustee of the liquidating Bernie Madoff’s fraudulent investment firm, challenged a discovery request in a New York bankruptcy court lawsuit that sought to recover $1.5 million from the former Madoff customers. The trustee alleged that the defendant’s attorney is resorting to unprofessional personal attacks against him. Further, the trustee argued that the discovery conduct had no basis in fact and did not reflect a good faith effort to investigate factual matters as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(g). The trustee stated that it took an enormous and unprecedented effort to transparently make available all of the underlying materials supporting the determination that Madoff operated the largest and longest running financial fraud in the modern history. Despite that, the defendants’ counsel ignored the evidence provided by the trustee and served the trustee in over 80 cases, 18 discovery requests demanding burdensome interrogatory responses concerning unrelated subjects and complex investigations into the evidence previously furnished.
The case is Picard v. Trust U/Art Fourth O/W/O Israel Wilenitz, case number 10-04995. The bankruptcy case is Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC et al., case number 1:08-ap-01789, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.
Late Payments That Became Significantly Late During the Preference Period Resulted in Denial of Ordinary Course Defense
AFA Inv. Inc. v. Dale T. Smith & Sons Meat Packing Co. (In re AFA…Read More
JPMorgan Wins Dismissal of Madoff Investors’ U.S. Lawsuit
New York, May 18, 2016 – In a class action suit brought by Richard Friedman…Read More
Health Diagnostic Laboratory Initiates Second Round of Clawback Litigation
July 28, 2016, Virginia – Last month, Health Diagnostic Laboratory, Inc.’s liquidating trustee (HDL) brought…Read More
Avoidance Provisions of the Bankruptcy Code under §547(b) Does Not Apply Extraterritorially
Spizz v. Goldfarb Seligman & Co. (In re Ampal-Am. Isr. Corp.), 562 B.R. 601 (Bankr….Read More